Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS

[SethB]

Doctrinally ECR is twice the radius at which you can expect one shell fragment per meter. There are other measures of lethality now.

As for ammunition choice, I'm not entirely sure what is current for the M119/105MM. Saw some stuff on the Denel ammunition that was very, very impressive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the M118 is just separate loading version the M119? And it looks like a longer tube...

The V2C2 is also an impressive piece of hardware (usual qualifiers about things that aren't finished yet apply) and it should be noted that none of the current 105MM shells are rated for the high MVs, which means new and hopefully improved rounds would have to be part of the package.

DPICM has pros and cons, but I think there is a lot of need for standard HE. The decision to prohibit DPICM use in Iraq and Afghanistan was apparently made not long after the wars started.

What did you think of the LAV III with a howitzer attached?

[Ken White]

Doctrinally ECR is twice the radius at which you can expect one shell fragment per meter. There are other measures of lethality now.

Number of fragments is a poor indicator of lethality; too many other variables. The old bursting radius criteria was obtained by popping off rounds in the center of concentric circles of silhouettes and estimating potential kills versus potential wounds. All such estimates are just that; munition effects are too unpredictable to be precisely stated. Not a prob, really, the estimates are adequate for planning purposes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the M118 is just separate loading version the M119? And it looks like a longer tube...

Longer tube, different shell, greater range, British (original) version. We insisted on the shorter tube and the old chamber due to vast stocks of older 105mm Ammo on hand. Economic choice versus combat effectiveness choice. Logical on the surface but could have been better worked around IMO.

...but I think there is a lot of need for standard HE.

Agree.

What did you think of the LAV III with a howitzer attached?

Yes with the Denel 105 (or similar) in a turret, no for the M777 piggy back. Though I'm not a fan of the LAV. It was a stopgap purchase of the cheapest available system due to the US Army's failure to develop wheeled vehicles after WW II.

Our northwest Europe experience in 1944-45 left the Army with many bad legacies...

[kaur]

(Experimental) Light Mechanized Infantry Regiment.

Order of Battle

Regimental Admin and Logistics Center

Battalion HQ

Light Mechanized Infantry Company
6x 8x8 ATV w/QJZ8912.7mm HMG
3x 8x8 ATV w/W87 35mm AGL
3x 8x8 ATV w/PP93 60mm Mortar
9x 4x4 ATV

Heavy Mechanized Infantry Company
3x Type 96 Main Battle Tank
3x Type 86 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)
3x ZBD97 IFV

Fire Support Company
1x Company HQ FAV
1x FAV w/Minigun
1x FAV w/HJ-8 ATGM FAV
3x FAV w/W99 82mm Automortar
3x FAV w/Type 87 25mm/SAM
3x FAV w/QJZ8912.7mm HMG
3x FAV w/W87 35mm
1x 4x4 ATV w/JS 12.7mm Sniper Rifle

Artillery Battery
Battery HQ/Fire Direction Center
3x 82mm Mortar
3x PTL02 105mm Wheeled Anti-Tank Gun
3x 107mm Multiple Rocket Launcher ATVs

Recon Platoon
1x Command Jeep with 2x HN-5 MANPADS
2x Dune Buggy Jeeps w/Heavy Machinegun/HJ-73 ATGM
1x 4x4 ATV with PF98 120mm Recoilless Rifle
1x 4x4 ATV

Electronic Warfare Detachment

UAV Detachment

Medical Detachment (at least two 4x4 ATV ambulances)

http://www.china-defense.com/pla/lmr/lmr-6.html

http://www.china-defense.com/pla/lmr/lmr-3.html

[Fuchs]

A wheeled motorised infantry battle group with the greatest possible diversity of calibres and a large diversity of vehicles. Whoever invented this scheme didn't grasp the idea of commonality, standardization.

The small quantities of specialist vehicles also points at a lacking understanding of the effects of attrition and friction on army formations.

The "Recon" Plt doesn't seem to be one.
There's no R&R vehicle.


The whole thing looks like a bad idea of an airmobile infantry BG for swampy terrain.

[kaur]

The mix of heavy and light units that make up the experimental LMR raises many questions regarding the training and supportability of such a dissimilar force. It is unclear if the LMIC, HMIC, and FSC are each placeholders for a full maneuver battalion within a complete LMR, or if each maneuver battalion would have the mix of units seen in the experimental LMR. It may even be that each of the various types of units within the LMR represents a competing organizational design.

http://www.china-defense.com/pla/lmr/lmr-3.html

If Israeli engineers can mount Lahat missile containers to those ATV platforms, I think that those pieceses can make some serious damage against opponent. I recall French general Beaufre's Territorial Militia Organisation from the beginning of 1970's and those 21th century NLOS solutions could really extend the small units firepower to new level

[Fuchs]

It depends.

It's just a piece of hardware. Not all will be fired, not all fired missiles will hit. Not all terrains are suitable for their employment. Hardware-based protection is just as possible as tactics-based protection.
It's really just a piece of kit.


On the other hand - I already proved my inability to cure your extreme weakness for guided missiles, leaving little sense in a renewed attempt.

[SethB]

Technically all missiles (and some rockets) are guided.

Somehow he is on the topic of direct fire systems, which is very different from where this thread started.